Ginger Ford Northshore Fuller Center for Housing Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
264235331
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2023
Forms available
Form 990 2023, Form 990-N 2009
Location
Hammond, LA, USA
Phone
9854291040
Rating
43
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Low-Income & Subsidized Rental Housing

Reported finances

Revenue
$211,927
Expenses
$233,912
Assets
$1,759,756
Liabilities
$360,127

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Kurt Bornkessel (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • April Hayden (Associate Director): $49,800 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Each year the Ginger Ford Northshore Fuller Center for Housing constructs at least one new home which is sold to the homeowner at noprofit the cost of the home is kept affordable through the use of volunteer labor and the use of donated material because the homeownersare typically no able to obtain financing through conventional means the organization provides financing at zero percent interest forextended terms generally over 15 years

What it reported doing in 2023

The Ginger Ford Northshore Fuller Center for Housing was organized to assist in providing affordable housing for the disadvantaged and poor. This is accomplished by both constructing new homes and repairing homes that have fallen in disrepair.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 15
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 63
  • Sustainability: 41
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 4.9%; rating input score 5
  • Program expense ratio: 4.5%; rating input score 4
  • Fundraising efficiency: $1,546.91 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 75%; rating input score 75; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -10.4%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 7.52; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.2; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 21.3%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -29.1% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -13.7% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -0.3% per year; rating input score 0; 25th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 4.9% of revenue deployed · 4.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 1 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $50K · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 20 of 22 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2020 to 2023
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 5/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 4/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 7 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 24/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D land buildings reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 18/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 20/100.